View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |  Facilitation Power Interest Grid |  Growth A/B Testing |  Facilitation Stakeholder Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. | When many stakeholders compete for attention at once, the Power Interest Grid sorts them by influence and stake. It turns individual contributions into a visible selection. The result is captured as a Power Interest Grid and a stakeholder-specific strategy. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When an initiative depends on many people, interests, and power dynamics, Stakeholder Mapping systematically orders the environment. It shows who influences, who is affected, and where relationship management or safeguarding matters first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 h | 30-60 min | 1-4 Wochen | 60–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-30 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas | Power Interest Grid, Strategy per Stakeholder | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Stakeholder Map, Engagement Plan, Risk Notes |
Tagsno overlap | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment | StakeholdersFacilitationAlignmentPlanning | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | StakeholdersAlignmentFacilitationChange |